Forget, alas, all the usual stuff about fairness, balance and freedom of independent thought. Merely follow Editor and Publisher magazine's own accounting for the first eight media days of Gaza warfare.

Coverage: "Largely one-sided, with little editorialising or commentary arguing against broader Israeli actions." And: "Most notably, the New York Times produced exactly one editorial, not a single commentary by any of its columnists and only two op-eds (one already published elsewhere)."

Ground invasion? The Times never addressed its wisdom or unwisdom before the tanks rolled forward. A Washington Post editorial, after the event, thought invading "risky".

In general, with the New York Post, the Daily News and all the usual suspects cheerleading away, there was no balance, no fairness and precious little you could call independent thought. Tel Aviv seemed to bark orders: the US media just wagged its tail.

And on the ninth day, only a column by Bill Kristol added marginally to a dismal record.

It was only when that school had taken a pounding that "pitfalls" in Israeli diplomatic strategy began to depress Steven Erlanger.

Britain, by contrast, does a bit better than that. The Telegraph is strongly pro-Israel, the Independent (with Robert Fisk) strongly pro-Palestinian: papers like the Guardian – see Jonathan Freedland or Ian Black – strive to understand the issues and push them forward. There is a range of commentary and opinion that at least puts history and complexity into the mix.

You don't need to agree, but you can at least join in. Why, when it should be leading and questioning, when its voice could really change minds and politics, is American mainstream journalism so timid? Why doesn't even an Israeli ban on letting its reporters into Gaza – foreign journalists too "unethical, biased and unprofessional" for an on-the-spot job according to Israel's news centre organisers – raise the Times or Washington Post to a simulation of fury?

Any other country in the world (Iran, Russia, Syria) would get dumped on from a great adjectival height. But no ... steady she still goes. Maybe 9/11 has made explanation difficult. Maybe no one can be bothered to examine an Arab case that's split, squabbling and often difficult to follow. Maybe the mantra of "Israel, Our Ally" simply trumps thought. Maybe – at a difficult financial time – disapproval is perceived to carry too much of a price. Maybe readers just need to be told what they think already.

Whatever, it doesn't matter ... except that, of course, it does matter. It matters because Israel (see its new aid corridors) does listen when the din is loud enough. It matters because the press has a duty, imperfectly executed. It matters because democratic government depends on good information – and here, this time round, seekers after any broader truth (longer than a fortnight ago, that is) would do better to log on to Israeli news websites and read papers like Ha'aretz that make the great grey Times seem craven.